Anxiety, Self-Efficacy, and College Exam Grades

Universal Journal of Educational Research 1(3): 204-208, 2013

DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2013.010310



Anxiety, Self-Efficacy, and College Exam Grades

Jennifer Barrows1, Samantha Dunn1, Carrie A. Lloyd2,*

1

Butler University Conference, April, 2013, in Indianapolis, Huntington University

Department of Psychology, Huntington University, 2303 College Avenue, Huntington, IN 46750

*Corresponding Author: clloyd@huntington.edu

2

Copyright ? 2013 Horizon Research Publishing All rights reserved.

Abstract A student¡¯s level of self-efficacy and test

anxiety directly impacts their academic success (Abdi,

Bageri, Shoghi, Goodarzi, & Hosseinzadeh, 2012;

Hassanzadeh, Ebrahimi, & Mahdinejad, 2012). When a

student doubts themself and their own ability to test well,

the students¡¯ sole focus becomes worrying about poor

grades and cannot focus on academics (Bandura, 1993). But,

little is understood about how test-anxiety and self-efficacy

affect short-term success in the classroom. Specifically,

how test anxiety and level of self-efficacy directly

preceding an exam will affect the exam score. Pre-and

post-questionnaires assessing anxiety and self-efficacy

immediately before and after a single college exam was

completed by 110 college students and exam grades were

obtained from the instructor. Results showed a strong

relationship between both test anxiety and exam grades, and

self-efficacy and exam grades. Further, multiple linear

regression analyses showed that exam grade could be

predicted by test anxiety and self-efficacy level, and that

self-efficacy moderated the effects of anxiety.

Keywords

College Exams, Test Anxiety, College

Students, Academic Performance, Self-Efficacy

1. Introduction

Test anxiety negatively affects students; more so if the

anxiety is dealt with in an unhealthy manner and extends

over a long period of time. Hill and Wigfield (1984)

approximate that 10 million primary and secondary students¡¯

test anxiety causes decreased test performance. Test anxiety

is a multi-dimensional phenomenon that involves worry,

emotionality, and behavioral reply to being preoccupied by

the possible negative outcome of academic scores (Chapell,

Blanding, Silverstein, Takahashi, Newman, Gubi, &

McCann, 2005; Mulkey & O¡¯ Neil, 1999). Students¡¯ level of

test anxiety can cause a variety of negative outcomes, mainly

low academic scores. But, overall self-efficacy may

moderate this effect.

Test anxiety is detrimental to overall academic success.

Chapell et al. (2005) asked 5,551 participants to complete the

Test Anxiety Inventory (TAI; Spielberger, 1980), report their

current cumulative GPA, and complete a self-report scale

detailing their grades (Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman,

Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987). The authors found a one-third

letter grade difference between undergraduates with high test

anxiety and low test anxiety (Chapell et al., 2005). So, in

addition to typically discussed measures of academic

performance (e.g., intelligence, capability, study habits), test

anxiety also plays a role in whether or not students perform

well in academics.

Davis et al. (2008) and Pintrich and De Groot (1990)

support Chapell et al.¡¯s (2005) results. Davis et al. studied

2,215 first-year college students (56% female, 44% male);

asking students to complete the Cognitive-Appraising

Processing subscales of the Emotional Regulation during

Test Taking Scale (Schutz et al., 2004) and the Test Anxiety

Scale of the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory

(Weinstein et al., 1987). There was a strong correlation

between test anxiety and SAT and general quantitative

scores. The cluster of students who had high test anxiety had

difficulty coping with the stress of the tests which resulted in

lower standardized test scores. Pintrich and De Groot¡¯s

(1990) findings report that test anxiety negatively impacts

memory and the ability to retrieve information from memory

storage, and thus makes it difficult to retrieve information

when needed on exam to correctly answer questions.

More recent studies show the same outcome. In the first

study, Lang and Lang (2010) studied 219 secondary and

vocational school students (122 female, 97 male) and 232

students (132 female, 100 male) secondary students in a

second study. Students in the first study completed the Test

Anxiety Inventory (TAI-G; Hodapp, Laux, & Spielberger,

1982) and in the second study, the students completed a test

performance measure in addition to two questionnaires

asking about the extent to which they were engaged with the

assignment given to them (Rheinberg & Vollmeyer, 2003)

and the extent to which they were worrying (Rheinberg &

Vollmeyer, 2003). Both groups showed a decrease in test

performance, regardless of measure, with increased worry

about the test. Similarly, Abdi, Bageri, Shoghi, Goodarzi, &

Hosseinzadeh (2012) tested 127 randomly chosen high

school students with the Spielberger test anxiety scale.

Correlations and regression analyses found a relationship

Universal Journal of Educational Research 1(3): 204-208, 2013

between test anxiety and overall grade point average.

Hassanzadeh, Ebrahimi, and Mahdinejad¡¯s (2012) study

added to this literature in that the students¡¯ level of test

anxiety can cause the students¡¯ academic performance to

suffer even more depending on the length of time they suffer

from test anxiety. These results show that test anxiety inhibit

students¡¯ ability to focus on academics which negatively

influences grades.

Worry and emotionality are two different ways that the

body naturally responds to test anxiety. Too much worry

negatively affects performance, but self-efficacy might

moderate this influence. Self-efficacy influences people¡¯s

belief about their own capabilities, which has been shown to

enhance students¡¯ academic performance (Bandura, 1993;

Mulkey & O¡¯Neil, 1999). When students are plagued with

worry they tend to be distracted or preoccupied with various

stressors that burden them, such as the outcome (Cohen et al.,

2008; Liebert & Morris, 1967). Thus, it seems reasonable to

conclude that students with high self-efficacy would not

worry as much about the test results. Mulkey and O¡¯Neil

(1999) asked 610 males over the age of 18 to take the Novell

NetWare 4.1 examination to determine the effects of their

worry and self-efficacy. Individuals who were master¡¯s

degree students performed well because they stated a belief

in their own ability to accomplish the examination given to

them, but the opposite was true for most undergraduate

students. Abdi et al. (2012) find similar results in their study

with high school students. A significant correlation existed

between self-efficacy and overall grade points. Regression

analyses further showed that self-efficacy could accurately

predict academic performance. Emotional responses such as

anxiety are the body¡¯s physiological response directed by the

autonomic nervous system which increases heart rate and

sweating in reaction to a stressful situation such as an exam

(Cohen et al., 2008; Mulkey & O¡¯Neil, 1999). Individuals

who have high self-efficacy, or confidence in their own skills

and abilities, seem to be able to control this physiological

response from affecting them negatively (Bandura, 1986,

1997).

Empirical evidence also supports the relationship between

self-efficacy and test-anxiety and academic achievement

within specific academic disciplines. For instance, Yildirim

(2012) found that high math self-efficacy is positively

related to math achievement and high test-anxiety is

negatively related to math achievement. Using Structural

Equation Modeling analyzing data of 297 undergraduate

engineering students, Hsieh, Sullivan, Sass, and Guerra

(2012) found that self-efficacy and test anxiety both

predicted students¡¯ final grades in a math class. Literacy

self-efficacy related to literacy competence scores (Bostock

& Boon, 2012) and teaching self-efficacy tools and

management of test-anxiety to students in Science and

Technology courses increased their grade in those courses

more than students who were taught only with standard

teaching methods (Gencosman & Dogru, 2012).

Individuals who do not perceive themselves as competent

lose motivation to complete hard tasks and instead seem to

205

focus on possible negative outcomes. Students with low

levels of self-efficacy focus their attention on the many ways

their possible failure on a task could jeopardize areas of their

lives (Bandura, 1993). Those with low self-efficacy also do

not seek out opportunities to gain the knowledge or skills

necessary to make success more likely, including building

self-confidence in their own abilities. One reason for this is

that these individuals see themselves as unintelligent when

asked to put forth a great deal of effort. Students who

perform poorly may see difficult experiences as threats and

attribute the results to their own negative internal

characteristics. This perceived incompetence increases test

anxiety and typically causes an even greater negative effect

on performance. But, high self-efficacy can do the opposite.

Students with high levels of self-efficacy imagine how

they can succeed and they trust in their own abilities

(Bandura, 1993). Nelson and Knight¡¯s (2010) study showed

that students can avoid negative outcomes of test anxiety by

thinking of past achievements, which will build courage and

endurance, and in turn will increase their self-efficacy. Those

who focus on the area that they are skilled at, cope better and

have lower anxiety. Positive thinking techniques can transfer

into the classroom and help students excel in academic

achievement as well. Students who perceive themselves as

being competent will more likely strive to learn how to do

better on challenging tasks such as exams. Those with high

levels of self-efficacy show lower levels of test anxiety,

possibly because they believe in themselves and are able to

imagine a successful outcome.

Current literature (e.g., Abdi et al., 2012; Adewuyi, Taiwo,

& Olley, 2012) has studied how overall grade point averages

and standardized tests are affected by long-term test anxiety

and self-efficacy in general by giving test anxiety and

self-efficacy measures and comparing the scores to overall

GPA as well as overall grades in various disciplines, but

have not looked at the effects of short-term test anxiety and

self-efficacy directly before an exam and comparing the

direct effect of that anxiety and self-efficacy on the exam

score. Because of the plethora of evidence showing how

long-term test anxiety and low self-efficacy negatively

affects academic performance, the current researchers

hypothesized that those with low self-efficacy and high test

anxiety would also have a lower single test grade than those

with high self-efficacy and low test anxiety. By examining

test-anxiety and self-efficacy within single, short-term

situations, the effects may be more manageable. Also, test

anxiety and self-efficacy both play a role in influencing

students¡¯ academic performance, but high levels of test

anxiety will typically negatively influence students¡¯ ability

to do well academically while high levels of self-efficacy

typically builds courage and confidence in students¡¯ own

ability to complete hard tasks and thus positively influences

academics. Because of this established relationship between

test anxiety and academic achievement and self-efficacy and

academic achievement, the second hypothesis was that

self-efficacy would moderate the effect test anxiety on

academic achievement.

206

Anxiety, Self-Efficacy, and College Exam Grades

2. Methodology

2.1. Participants

The current study was conducted at a small university in

the rural Midwest. A total of 110 students (37 male, 73

female) participated in the study. The age of the participants

ranged between 18 and 23 years old (M = 20.22, SD = 1.42).

The researchers randomly chose majors from the registration

class lists and included one class from each of the main

departments (i.e., Psychology, Sociology, Communication,

Business, English, Music, and History).

2.2. Measures

The researchers used a previously validated questionnaire,

Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ),

which was used as both the pre- and post-questionnaire. The

questionnaire was composed of 13 questions split into two

sections: one measuring self-efficacy and the other

measuring test anxiety (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). The

questionnaires (pre- and post-) were given out individually to

each participant during class-time. The pre-questionnaire

was given out three days before the test and an identical

questionnaire directly after the test was taken. A 7-point

Likert scale (1= not at all true to 7= very true of me) was used

to rate the students¡¯ level of test anxiety and self-efficacy. An

example of one of the questions for self-efficacy included:

¡°I¡¯m certain I can understand the ideas taught in this course.¡±

An example of one of the questions for test anxiety included:

¡°I am so nervous during a test that I cannot remember facts I

have learned.¡± The single test grade was collected from the

professor, and then the single test grade was compared to the

student¡¯s test anxiety and self-efficacy answers on the preand post-questionnaires.

2.3. Procedure

The researchers first conducted a pilot study which

included 15 students to test the operations of the study.

Professors who consented to participate in the study were

randomly selected from seven different departments

(Psychology, Sociology, Communication, Business, English,

Music, and History). These seven professors were asked to

allow the researchers to come into their classroom and solicit

volunteers to participate in the study by taking a pre-and

post-questionnaire before and after the classes¡¯ scheduled

class exam. A consent form was given out to each of the

students immediately before the pre-questionnaire. The

consent form allowed the researchers to receive each

student¡¯s single test grades after the exam. The students that

participated in the study were given an incentive of having

the chance to win a $25 gift card.

3. Results

The Paired samples t-tests determined several significant

mean differences for the participants¡¯ single test grades

between the pre-and post- test answers. The next part of this

section addresses the relationship between short-term

test-anxiety, self-efficacy, and the single exam grade. A

bivariate linear regression then analyzed the main research

question being whether test-anxiety and/or self-efficacy

predicts, and how accurately did each predict, a single exam

grade. The bivariate linear regression was also assessed to

see whether self-efficacy moderates test-anxiety. The results

support the hypothesis that, on average, participants had high

self-efficacy and low test anxiety, and those that had low

self-efficacy and high test anxiety had lower exam grades

than those with high self-efficacy and low test anxiety.

Contrary to the hypothesis, self-efficacy was not found to be

a moderator of test-anxiety for a single exam.

Descriptive statistics assessed participants¡¯ pre-and

post-questionnaires and test grade. As expected, results for

the pre-questionnaire showed more test anxiety (M = 13.30,

SD = 5.58) in comparison to the post-questionnaire (M =

12.70, SD = 5.62) for test anxiety. Female participants¡¯

results showed higher test anxiety before the test (M = 15.40,

SD = 5.75) in comparison to the mean after the test (M =

14.30, SD = 6.02). Male participants¡¯ results on the

pre-questionnaire showed that they had higher self-efficacy

before the test (M = 48.05, SD = 7.10) in comparison to after

the test (M = 46.27, SD = 7.35). Female participants¡¯ results

also showed higher self-efficacy before the test (M = 48.32,

SD = 7.42) in comparison to after the test (M = 46.90, SD =

8.27). Male participants¡¯ had lower average test grades (M =

4.05, SD = 1.05) than female participants¡¯ test grades (M =

4.08, SD = 1.09).

Paired samples t-tests determined whether or not the

participants¡¯ means between the pre- and the post- test

anxiety as well as pre- and the post- self-efficacy were

significantly different. The mean difference between the

students¡¯ pre- (M = 14.69, SD = 5.76) and post- (M = 13.76,

SD = 5.91) test anxiety was significant, t(2.67) = 2.67, p

= .009. The mean difference between the students¡¯ pre- (M =

48.23, SD = 7.28) and post- (M = 46.68, SD = 7.94)

self-efficacy was also significant, t(109) = 3.28, p = 0.001.

Multiple analyses of variance (MANOVA) were then

analyzed to determine whether or not there was a significant

mean difference between each of the students¡¯ single test

grades (A, B, C, D, or F) and pre-and post- test anxiety and

self-efficacy. There was a significant mean difference for the

letter grade on the exam and their self-efficacy before the

exam, F(4, 105) = 3.16, p < .05. A follow-up one-way

ANOVA did not show a significant mean difference for type

of letter grade on the exam (A, B, C, D, or F) and test anxiety.

(see Table 1 for means and standard deviations)

Universal Journal of Educational Research 1(3): 204-208, 2013

207

Table 1. MANOVA Results for Test Grades

A

M

B

SD

M

C

SD

M

D

SD

M

F

SD

M

SD

Pre-Test Anxiety

14.02

6.06

14.50

5.62

16.12

5.40

13.83

5.78

19.75

1.71

Post-Test Anxiety

13.49

5.80

13.68

5.87

13.24

5.63

13.50

7.04

20.50

6.14

Pre-Self-Efficacy

50.86

7.83

46.47

6.73

45.82

5.13

45.50

5.65

45.25

6.80

Post-Self-Efficacy

50.06

7.72

44.56

7.66

44.06

6.61

44.50

5.13

37.75

4.86

Pearson correlation coefficients also found significant

relationships between the pre- and the post-questionnaire

results for test anxiety, self-efficacy, and the students¡¯ single

test grades. The analyses showed a significant negative

correlation between the students¡¯ pre- test anxiety and exam

score (r = -.16, p < .05). There was also a significant

positive correlation between the students¡¯ pre-test

self-efficacy and exam score (r = .28, p = 0.002). (see Table

2 for means and standard deviations)

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Pre- and Post-Test Anxiety and

Self-Efficacy

M

SD

Pre-Test Anxiety

14.69

5.76

Post-Test Anxiety

13.76

5.91

Pre-Self-Efficacy

48.23

7.28

Post-Self-Efficacy

46.68

7.94

A multiple regression analysis was then conducted to

evaluate how well the anxiety and self-efficacy measures

predicted the single exam score. The predictors were anxiety

and self-efficacy, while the criterion variable was the exam

score. The results of this analysis indicated that test anxiety

and self-efficacy accounted for a significant amount of the

exam score variability, R2 = .08, F(2, 107) = 4.81, p = .01,

indicating that students with low self-efficacy who have

more test anxiety tended to have lower scores on the exam.

A second multiple regression analysis was conducted to

evaluate whether self-efficacy predicted the exam score over

and above test-anxiety. The self-efficacy measure did not

account for a significant proportion of the exam score

variance after controlling for the effects of test-anxiety, R2

change = .05, F(8, 99) = .69, p = .70. These results suggest

that self-efficacy does not moderate the effect of test anxiety.

Regardless of self-efficacy levels, if students have high test

anxiety they were more likely to have a lower exam grade.

4. Discussion

The results supported the hypothesis that higher levels of

test anxiety directly before an exam will negatively affect a

student¡¯s exam grade. The results did not support the

researchers¡¯ hypothesis that self-efficacy may act as a

moderator to the test-anxiety.

Similar to previous research (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990)

we found a relationship between self-efficacy and a student¡¯s

academic performance. The more self-efficacy a student has

the more they will feel they will do well and this will help

them do well on an exam. The current researcher¡¯s extended

Pintrich and De Groot¡¯s (1990) results, that there is a

relationship between overall self-efficacy and academic

achievement, by showing a relationship between participants¡¯

self-efficacy directly before a single exam and their

consequent exam grade. Obviously studying increases test

performance, but this study shows that studying is not the

only factor--the students¡¯ perception of their academic

performance, or confidence in doing well, also has a

considerable effect on the outcome.

We also found a relationship between test anxiety and

participants¡¯ test grade. Previous literature (e.g., Chapell et

al., 2005) reported a one-third letter overall grade difference

between undergraduates with high test anxiety and

undergraduates with low test anxiety. The current study¡¯s

results found a similar effect within a single exam, not only

overall GPA. The level of test anxiety directly before an

exam actually predicted the student¡¯s exam grade.

The present study¡¯s results supported previous literature

(e.g., Davis et al., 2008) showing a strong relationship

between self-efficacy and test anxiety. Davis et al. (2008)

found a strong relationship between test problem efficacy

and overall test anxiety. The current researchers extended

this discovery by showing a strong relationship between

participants¡¯ specific test anxiety and self-efficacy.

Because of these previous studies showing that

self-efficacy and test anxiety affected academic grade point

averages and that there was a negative relationship between

self-efficacy and test anxiety, we predicted that there would

not only be a relationship between self-efficacy, test anxiety,

and single test grades, but that self-efficacy may even

moderate the negative effects of test anxiety. But, although

our results did not support the hypothesis that self-efficacy

moderates test anxiety, our results may have even greater

implications. Test anxiety may be too detrimental to have a

moderating variable, even high self-efficacy. Future research

should look into other possible moderators of test anxiety on

single exams. Future research should also look further into

how students can lower their anxiety before each exam

208

Anxiety, Self-Efficacy, and College Exam Grades

because of the negative effect test anxiety has on not only

long-term academic success, but on each exam score. If

short-term anxiety can be lowered, this will inevitably lessen

the effect test anxiety has on overall academic performance.

One limitation of this study may have been the difficulty

level of the tests across disciplines. Although this should

have been accounted for by the students¡¯ answers to the preand post- test anxiety and self-efficacy questions, perhaps

the various levels of difficulty of each exam or subject may

have influenced the outcome.

Journal of Stress Management, 15(3), 289-303. doi:10.1037/

1072-5245.15.3.289

[7]

Davis, H. A., DiStefano, C., & Schutz, P. A. (2008).

Identifying patterns of appraising tests in first-year college

students: Implications for anxiety and emotion regulation

during test taking. Journal of Educational Psychology,

100(4), 942-960. doi:10.1037/a0013096

[8]

Gencosman, T., & Dogru, M. (2012). Effect of student

teams-achievement division¡¯s technique used in science and

technology education on self-efficacy, test anxiety, and

academic achievement. Journal of Baltic Science Education,

11(1), 43-54.

5. Conclusion

[9]

Empirical evidence supports the relationship between

self-efficacy, test anxiety, and overall academic success, and

our results further this literature in showing a relationship

between self-efficacy, test anxiety, and single test grades.

Also, we found that self-efficacy does not moderate test

anxiety or the test grade, which has interesting implications

for future researchers to discover if a moderator does exist as

well as how to lower test anxiety immediately before an

exam.

Hassanzadeh, R., Ebrahimi, S., & Mahdinejad, G. (2012).

Studying test anxiety and its relationship with self-efficacy,

metacognitive beliefs and some effective predictable

variables. European Journal of Social Services, 30(4),

511-522.

[10] Hill, K. T., & Wigfield, A. (1984). Test anxiety: A major

educational problem and what can be done about it.

Elementary School Journal, 85, 105-126.

REFERENCES

[12] Lang, J. W. B., & Lang, J. (2010). Priming competence

diminishes the link between cognitive test anxiety and test

performance: Implications for the interpretation of test

scores.

Psychological

Science,

21(6),

811-819.

doi:10.1177/0956797610369492

[1]

Abdi, H. M., Bageri, S., Shoghi, S., Goodarzi, Sh., &

Hosseinzadeh, A. (2012). The role of metacognitive and

self-efficacy beliefs in students¡¯ test anxiety and academic

achievement. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied

Sciences, 6(12), 418-422.

[2]

Adewuyi, T. O., Taiwo, O. K., & Olley, B. O. (2012).

Influence of examination anxiety and self-efficacy on

academic performance among secondary school students.

IFE Psychologia, 20(2), 60-68.

[3]

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive

development and functioning. Educational Psychologist,

28(2), 117-148.

[4]

Bostock, L., & Boon, H. (2012). Pre-service teachers¡¯

literacy self-efficacy and literacy competence. Australian

and International Journal of Rural Education, 22(1), 19-37.

[5]

Chapell, M. S., Blanding, Z. B., Silverstein, M. E.,

Takahashi, M., Newman, B., Gubi, A., &McCann, N. (2005).

Test anxiety and academic performance in undergraduate

and graduate students. Journal of Educational Psychology,

97(2), 268-274. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.268

[6]

Cohen, M., Ben-Zur, H., & Rosenfeld, M. J. (2008). Sense

of coherence, coping strategies, and test anxiety as predictors

of test performance among college students. International

[11] Hsieh, P., Sullivan, J. R., Sass, D. A., & Guerra, N. S. (2012).

Undergraduate engineering students¡¯ beliefs, coping

strategies, and academic performance: An evaluation of

theoretical models. The Journal of Experimental Education,

80(2), 196-218. doi:10.1080/00220973.2011.596853

[13] Liebert, R. M., & Morris, L. W. (1967). Cognitive and

emotional components of test anxiety: A distinction and

some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20, 975-978.

[14] Mulkey, J. R., & O¡¯Neil, H. F., Jr. (1999). The effects of test

item format on self-efficacy and worry during high-stakes

computer-based certification examination. Computers in

Human Behavior, 15(3-4), 495-506.

[15] Nelson, D.W., & Knight, A.E. (2010). The power of positive

recollections: Reducing test anxiety and enhancing college

student efficacy and performance. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 40(3), 732-745.

[16] Pintrich, P.R., & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and

self-regulated learning components of classroom academic

performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1),

33-40.

[17] Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). PsycTESTS:

Motivated strategies for learning questionnaire [Database

record]. Published instrument.

[18] Yildirium, S. (2012) Teacher support, motivation, learning

strategy use, and achievement: A multilevel mediation

model. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80(2),

150-172.

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download